What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300435 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Mahesh

How much money was awarded in case 5300435?

Cleaning: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5164598 D…: $2,295.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $51.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300435?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12375827-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300435 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Mahesh

How much money was awarded in case 5300435?

Cleaning: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5164598 D…: $2,295.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $51.50 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $253.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300435?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12375827-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 8 Scott Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300435 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 1, 8 Scott Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300435 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300435 — net $3,024.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025	$2,295.70	Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025
Cleaning: Empire Invoice	$396.75	Cleaning: Empire Invoice
Lock/key replacement	$51.50	Lock/key replacement
Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice	$253.00	Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,024.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,024.95

Claims and awards for application 5300435 — net $3,024.95 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025

Amount: $2,295.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025

Cleaning: Empire Invoice

Amount: $396.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Empire Invoice

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $51.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice

Amount: $253.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Mahesh Group $3,024.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 9 April 2025 under application 5164598.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 c. remove all rubbish, 4 d. return all keys and security devices, 5 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 6 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 7 g. replace standard light bulbs.
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). c. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 8 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 8 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 d. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 9 e. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 10 f. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 11

THIS CASE

In respect of the cleaning claim: a. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and his belongings by the termination date. The landlord allowed the tenant further time to remove his belongings and rubbish. The post-tenancy photographs show that floors and surfaces around the premises required cleaning and in particular the oven and toilet were not clean. b. The tenant said that he left the premises cleaner than at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided an ingoing inspection report which shows the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. c. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice ($396.75), the pre-tenancy and post tenancy reports and oral evidence.
In respect of the claim for lock/key replacement and replacement of a smoke alarm: a. The tenant did not return his key and acknowledged this. b. The tenant disputed liability for the key replacement however the tenant is obligated to return the keys and as the tenant did not return his key the landlord had to replace the lock and keys. c. The tenant acknowledged that the kitchen smoke alarm battery had not been replaced and the tenant had taken the smoke alarm down. The landlord had to replace this smoke alarm. d. The amount ordered is proved with invoices ($51.50 for keys, $253 for lock and smoke alarm), the pre-tenancy and post tenancy reports and oral evidence.

PREVIOUS ORDER

9 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 10 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 11 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008

On 9 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 11 April 2025, water rates to 4 April 2025, termination and payment of the bond to the landlord. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 12
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.

SUPPRESSION

Neither party applied for name suppression

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300435 — net $3,024.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025	$2,295.70	Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025
Cleaning: Empire Invoice	$396.75	Cleaning: Empire Invoice
Lock/key replacement	$51.50	Lock/key replacement
Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice	$253.00	Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,024.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,024.95

Claims and awards for application 5300435 — net $3,024.95 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025

Amount: $2,295.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5164598 dated 09/04/2025

Cleaning: Empire Invoice

Amount: $396.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Empire Invoice

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $51.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice

Amount: $253.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Smoke alarms and lock replacement - Boss Build invoice

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Js Property Management Limited As Agent For Mahesh Group $3,024.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 9 April 2025 under application 5164598.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 c. remove all rubbish, 4 d. return all keys and security devices, 5 e. leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 6 f. replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 7 g. replace standard light bulbs.
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). c. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 8 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(1)(e)(v) of the RTA. 7 See section 40(1)(ca) RTA and Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. 8 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 d. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 9 e. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 10 f. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 11

THIS CASE

In respect of the cleaning claim: a. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and his belongings by the termination date. The landlord allowed the tenant further time to remove his belongings and rubbish. The post-tenancy photographs show that floors and surfaces around the premises required cleaning and in particular the oven and toilet were not clean. b. The tenant said that he left the premises cleaner than at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord provided an ingoing inspection report which shows the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. c. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice ($396.75), the pre-tenancy and post tenancy reports and oral evidence.
In respect of the claim for lock/key replacement and replacement of a smoke alarm: a. The tenant did not return his key and acknowledged this. b. The tenant disputed liability for the key replacement however the tenant is obligated to return the keys and as the tenant did not return his key the landlord had to replace the lock and keys. c. The tenant acknowledged that the kitchen smoke alarm battery had not been replaced and the tenant had taken the smoke alarm down. The landlord had to replace this smoke alarm. d. The amount ordered is proved with invoices ($51.50 for keys, $253 for lock and smoke alarm), the pre-tenancy and post tenancy reports and oral evidence.

PREVIOUS ORDER

On 9 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 11 April 2025, water rates to 4 April 2025, termination and payment of the bond to the landlord. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 12
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.

SUPPRESSION

Neither party applied for name suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300435 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Scott Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300435 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Scott Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THIS CASE

PREVIOUS ORDER

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THIS CASE

PREVIOUS ORDER

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.